Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1887-03-24

BIscoE DEcIsIog.-On the 18th, The
HOMETOWN, nARYLAND.
ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR IN ADVANCE.

hirso1, reversed the Charles County
Court and awarded Biscoe new trial.
Chief Judge Alvey dissented from the
majority ruling. The court says
The confession made by the prison
er to Morgan, the committing magis-
trate, was not a free and voluntary
confession. and it ought not, therefore,
to have been permitted to 60 to the
jury. The confession was made under
the following circumstances: The pris-
oner was committed to Jail for the
murder Of Capt. Dixon, aud the mag
istrate seemed to think it was his duty
to get from the prisoner an admission
or confession of some kind as to his
guilt. For this purpose he went to see
the prisoner no less than FIVE times,
and at each of these interviews the
prisoner denied be had anything to
do with the killing of the deceased.
Finally. at the fifth interview. Morgan
said he had read statement in news
paper that a Capt. Evans had seen the
deceased on his vessel on the trip on
which he was killed, and that there
was only one other man on board.
Upon his making this statement the
prisoner seemed to hesitate, and Nor
gan then said to him that it would lie
better for him to tell the truth and
have no more trouble about it. and
therefore the prisoner made the con-
ssion, which was offered in evidence.
Morgan further says that in all these
interviews he told the prisoner he
could make him no promises.
Now all agree that confession is
not admissible on evidence against the
prisoner unless it was freely and vol
UNFAIRLY made. There is no difficulty
in regard to the rule itself; the trouble is
in the application ofthe rule othe facts
Of each particular case; that is, wheth:
er it was free and voluntary confess
sion, or whether it was produced by the
influence ofanother under hope offavor
or advantage if made, or fear of harm
or disadvantage Of some kind If with
held. 1t is not an easy matter in all,
cases to measure the force Of the in
huence used, end courts leaning to the
side of mercy may have in some cases
excluded confessions where it is diff
cult to see how the alleged inducement
had any influence on the mind Of the
prisoner. We have no disposition to
extend the rule beyond sound and
well-estsblishsd principles. Tested by
these principles the confession in this
case is, We think, clearly inadmissible
The prisoner was in the custody of the
law, and although pressed time. and
again to make confession, and press.
ed, too, by one in authority. he per-
sisted in denying his guilt, and it was
not until he was told that it would be
better for him to tell the truth and
have no more trouble about it that the
confession was made. Here there was
an inducement, and one, too, of the
strongest kind, held out to him. The
witness. it is true, says he told the
prisoner he could make no promises
but what does this amount to when
IN the next breath, we find him saying
to the prisoner that it would be better
for him to tell the truth, and thereby
have no more trouble about the mat.
ter? 1t was, in fact, saying to the
prisoner, if you will tell me the truth
1t will not only be the better for you,
but you shall have no more trouble
about the matter. In Gaines's case, 9
Carr, and X. 900, the witness told the
prisoner that it would be better for
him to tell the truth. After arpu-
ment before a full bench, Pollock, G.
B.. said: When person has been told
that he had better tell the truth. and
these expressions are used BY or in the
presence Of a person in authority, l
always reject the evidence Judge
Marie said that had been decided in
more than hundred instances" The
Court OF Appeals quotes from numer-
Gus decisions to sustain its opinion, and
says the confession of Biscoe was sac
cording to all the decisions inadmissi-
bic, and the court ought to have ex.
Guided it from the jury. The court
below also erred in declining to let the
prisoner prove before the confession
was made, at previous interviews, that
Morgan held out inducements for him
to confess. The coHrt, before admit
ting the confession, ought to have first
seen whether any inducements had
been held out to the prisoner. The
Judge could rule confession out after
it was in, if satisfied by subsequent
evidence that it was not a free and
voluntary confession; but once in it